Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #135170 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-11-06 14:48 -0600 |
| Last post | 2025-11-26 00:45 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 637 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 14:48 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 15:55 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-06 21:10 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 15:32 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-06 22:07 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 16:16 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:26 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 16:32 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:35 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 16:55 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:00 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:12 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:32 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:36 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:43 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:59 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:02 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:28 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:37 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:45 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:50 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:56 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:57 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-06 22:07 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 16:24 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:27 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 16:52 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:58 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:08 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:35 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:45 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:52 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-07 00:00 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:16 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-07 01:46 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 20:46 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 22:01 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-07 04:16 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 22:19 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 23:27 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-07 10:45 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 06:55 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 21:43 +0800
Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 08:06 -0600
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 22:12 +0800
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 08:28 -0600
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 22:35 +0800
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 08:38 -0600
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 22:55 +0800
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 09:06 -0600
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 23:17 +0800
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 09:20 -0600
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 23:34 +0800
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 09:53 -0600
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-08 00:07 +0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-07 14:16 +0000
Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 08:29 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-06 21:31 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 22:45 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-07 03:59 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-06 22:07 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 23:11 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 23:29 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 22:02 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 22:04 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:01 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:05 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:30 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:36 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:44 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:49 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:51 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:54 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:57 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:58 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-07 01:22 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:25 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-07 03:41 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 22:00 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-07 10:05 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 06:57 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-08 10:05 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-08 07:36 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-09 12:22 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-09 06:51 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-10 06:17 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 08:40 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-10 23:14 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 18:27 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-11 04:02 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 09:43 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 11:28 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-10 23:19 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 21:58 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-10 11:43 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 08:48 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-10 23:09 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 17:53 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-11 03:55 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 21:59 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-11 04:09 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 06:59 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 08:03 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-11 19:17 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 15:38 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 16:56 -0500
How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 19:38 -0600
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 02:13 +0000
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 20:33 -0600
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 21:05 -0600
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 21:45 -0600
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 05:52 +0000
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 23:59 -0600
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 06:13 +0000
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 06:50 -0600
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:41 +0000
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:41 +0000
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:41 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 02:20 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 20:41 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 06:11 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 06:45 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 07:37 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-12 15:03 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 09:11 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 02:16 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 21:22 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 20:30 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 21:35 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-13 04:44 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 22:55 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 08:32 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:36 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 07:38 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 17:40 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 13:20 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 19:38 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 14:22 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-11 10:59 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 07:04 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 08:05 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-12 09:09 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 06:54 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-13 10:48 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:50 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-14 11:21 +0200
The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 09:00 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-15 12:15 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 10:12 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-16 11:18 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 18:12 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-17 10:43 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:31 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-18 12:23 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 10:43 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-18 18:04 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 12:26 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 18:51 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 14:01 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 20:24 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 14:39 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 21:30 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 15:43 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 15:48 -0600
Weasel word double talk excuses =--- AKA Liars olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 15:57 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-19 11:46 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 06:59 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-20 11:10 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:31 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 12:01 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:17 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 10:29 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 18:35 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 13:55 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 14:58 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 21:47 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 15:53 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 22:19 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 16:48 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 18:00 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 23:55 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 18:20 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 00:39 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 18:51 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:02 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-27 01:24 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 19:42 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-27 02:00 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:37 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 04:15 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:31 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 06:51 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 08:59 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 10:16 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:17 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 07:41 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 07:40 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 23:00 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-27 01:39 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 19:47 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-27 01:59 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:26 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 04:19 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:39 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-27 04:48 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:58 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 07:06 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 23:16 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 23:21 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Jan van den Broek <balglaas@dds.nl> - 2025-11-27 07:45 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:08 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 10:38 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:05 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:05 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:18 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 16:27 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-29 01:25 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 16:24 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 16:36 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 23:14 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 09:49 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 23:58 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:14 +0200
The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 08:46 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-28 10:59 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:27 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:38 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 14:58 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-01 12:45 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 06:47 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 14:29 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 08:38 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 14:45 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 08:57 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 15:06 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:19 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:26 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:29 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 15:31 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:39 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 15:48 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:55 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 16:00 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 10:27 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 16:41 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 18:24 -0600
Olcott is provably correct --- no one can correctly refute this olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 19:54 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-02 11:07 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-02 08:14 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-03 13:34 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 10:27 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-04 11:17 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-04 08:15 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 11:23 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:47 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-06 17:26 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:21 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 10:40 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:37 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:24 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:18 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 08:52 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-28 11:01 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 09:37 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-11 10:56 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 07:02 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 08:04 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 13:19 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-12 09:12 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 06:56 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-13 10:51 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 01:00 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:56 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 19:12 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 14:39 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-14 11:24 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 09:12 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-15 12:23 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 10:14 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-16 11:21 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-16 15:39 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 10:15 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-16 16:24 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 10:45 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-16 17:13 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 11:40 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-17 10:46 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:34 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-18 12:26 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 10:45 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 21:21 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 15:29 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 16:49 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 01:01 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 19:27 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 02:53 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 21:07 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:30 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:31 +0000
DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 22:45 -0600
Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:52 +0000
Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 23:08 -0600
Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 00:14 -0500
Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 05:23 +0000
Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-19 10:58 +0000
Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 06:18 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-23 21:20 +0000
Glossary of names of my simulating termination analyzer HHH(DD) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-23 16:29 -0600
Re: Glossary of names of my simulating termination analyzer HHH(DD) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-24 11:23 +0200
Re: Glossary of names of my simulating termination analyzer HHH(DD) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 07:30 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-19 11:50 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 07:01 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-20 11:11 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 13:54 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 21:58 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 23:09 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 06:49 +0000
polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 07:22 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 17:51 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 12:06 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 18:08 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 18:08 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 03:53 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 07:03 +0000
polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 07:33 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 17:56 +0000
Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 13:29 -0600
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 04:00 +0000
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 23:02 -0600
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 05:23 +0000
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 05:24 +0000
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-23 14:53 -0600
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-23 13:32 -0800
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 02:44 +0000
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 02:45 +0000
DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-23 21:15 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-23 23:54 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 16:32 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 16:32 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 10:37 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 17:55 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 12:08 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 19:22 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 19:30 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 14:20 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 22:31 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 22:45 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-24 17:23 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-25 05:10 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 23:25 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 10:34 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-26 05:43 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 23:51 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:21 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-26 17:37 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 12:52 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-26 17:59 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 12:32 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 12:28 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 12:45 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 10:45 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2025-11-24 19:45 +0100
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-24 18:12 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 12:21 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 19:30 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 14:32 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 14:15 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 22:25 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 17:21 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 13:47 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 11:20 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 19:27 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 14:14 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 22:22 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 17:19 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 16:15 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 16:25 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 01:39 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 02:15 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 22:12 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-24 23:33 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 18:33 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 16:37 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-25 02:10 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 22:10 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 10:38 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 14:47 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 22:35 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 19:43 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 22:45 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-24 17:24 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 01:42 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 02:15 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 22:35 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 07:00 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 07:00 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 08:56 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 10:49 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 17:39 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 11:44 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 13:06 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 11:50 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 13:06 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 09:44 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 10:46 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-25 19:19 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:35 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 20:27 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 20:27 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 14:52 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 16:42 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 20:38 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 14:56 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:32 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-28 17:24 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 12:09 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-22 10:25 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-24 22:30 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 16:20 +0100
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 09:47 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 16:50 +0100
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 10:09 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 17:33 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 17:36 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 11:37 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 17:29 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 11:39 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 17:44 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 12:04 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 13:09 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 12:36 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 19:08 +0000
Olcott creates a new foundation for automated correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:22 -0600
Re: Olcott creates a new foundation for automated correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 16:47 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 12:35 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 16:45 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:05 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:22 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-26 17:13 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:36 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:41 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 13:08 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 17:42 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 11:52 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 18:46 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:18 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 12:05 -0800
New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 14:20 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:56 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 15:01 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 21:03 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 15:09 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 21:12 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 15:27 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:30 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 23:14 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 17:21 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 23:25 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:00 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:04 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:14 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:18 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:38 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:42 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 00:47 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:52 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:57 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 19:19 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:29 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:32 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 18:29 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 19:43 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:45 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:03 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:09 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:34 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:36 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:46 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:47 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:01 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:03 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:11 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:34 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 17:03 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 19:53 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:36 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:38 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 19:36 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:10 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:30 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 02:36 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:43 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:09 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:17 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:26 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:32 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 05:15 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:36 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 11:22 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:15 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 10:20 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 10:31 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 19:43 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 09:40 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:17 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 10:42 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:29 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 08:54 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-28 17:22 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 16:31 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:40 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:42 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 15:01 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-30 12:19 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:46 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:22 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:24 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:27 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:33 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:36 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:50 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:53 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:58 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 22:18 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:21 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:56 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:54 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:22 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:23 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:55 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:58 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 22:06 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:11 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:23 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:24 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:56 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:01 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 08:53 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 10:06 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:59 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 05:18 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 05:16 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:14 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:27 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:00 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:08 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:12 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:30 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:36 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:41 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:43 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:24 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:26 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:30 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:47 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 22:01 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:07 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 08:44 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 10:04 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 10:34 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 11:05 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 08:58 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 09:30 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:16 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:35 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 09:16 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:44 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:40 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-30 12:14 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:13 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:36 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 09:18 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:48 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-30 12:07 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-03 12:53 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 10:11 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-04 11:07 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-04 08:10 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-05 11:13 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 11:40 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 11:19 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 12:55 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 13:44 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 11:21 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:46 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 12:50 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 11:15 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-08 11:08 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 13:05 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-13 13:05 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-13 09:55 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-15 11:52 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-15 09:49 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-17 12:49 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:45 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:59 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:16 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 02:34 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:37 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:02 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:06 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:08 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:19 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:28 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-26 05:53 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:15 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:21 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:16 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:08 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:19 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:22 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:30 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:18 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:14 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 01:48 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 20:59 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:11 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:16 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:34 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:05 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:27 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:23 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 14:40 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:03 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 16:29 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:31 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 17:09 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:19 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 18:38 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:40 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:16 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:40 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:45 +0000
Page 1 of 32 [1] 2 3 … 32 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-06 14:48 -0600 |
| Subject | D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state |
| Message-ID | <10ej1i4$1dbgr$1@dont-email.me> |
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state. I am not going to talk about any non-nonsense of resuming a simulation after we already have this final answer. We just proved that the input to H(D) specifies non-halting. Anything beyond this is flogging a dead horse. news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The whole point is that D simulated by H >> cannot possbly reach its own simulated >> "return" statement no matter what H does. > > Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. > > So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, > that D simulation won't reach the return statement. > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-06 15:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10ej20c$1b1t4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135170 |
On 11/6/2025 3:48 PM, olcott wrote: > D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own > simulated final halt state. Rejected out-of-hand as unclear, as "H" and "D" in the above sentence could refer to an algorithm, C function, or finite string, and the meaning of the above sentence differs depending on which one is meant in each case. To fix this, prefix each instance of "D" and "H" in the above sentence with exactly one of: * algorithm * C function * finite string > > I am not going to talk about any non-nonsense of > resuming a simulation after we already have this > final answer. But the resumption proves the answer was wrong. > > We just proved that the input to H(D) i.e. finite string D which is the description of algorithm D and therefore stipulated to specify all semantic properties of algorithm D including the fact that it halts when executed directly. > specifies non-halting. False, see above.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-06 21:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251106130402.803@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135170 |
On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own > simulated final halt state. "Simulation of D" and "D" are not the same. A partial simulation of D does not show whether (or not) D reaches a halt state. Only a correct, complete simulation of D coincides with D's behavior. > I am not going to talk about any non-nonsense of > resuming a simulation after we already have this > final answer. And you think that statements like this will not be an obstacle when you present your work to cs/math academia? Do you think that CS academics will buy the idea that a simulating halt decider can leave a simulation object with unfinished steps, such that those do not matter, and pronounce that simulation to be never ending? They are going to ask the obvious question: what if you take that simulation and peform more steps, surely it halts, so the result was wrong. You need a /rational/ argument to explain why that is forbidden; you cannot just /decree/ that it is so. That's not how things work in the intellectual arts. > We just proved that the input to H(D) specifies > non-halting. Anything beyond this is flogging a > dead horse. English language figures of speech are not a substitute for logical reasoning. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-06 15:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10ej464$1e3dv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135174 |
On 11/6/2025 3:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own
>> simulated final halt state.
>
> "Simulation of D" and "D" are not the same.
>
> A partial simulation of D does not show whether (or not)
> D reaches a halt state.
>
I have know that for many years. Is this new to you?
> Only a correct, complete simulation of D coincides
> with D's behavior.
>
We don't give a rat's ass about the behavior of D.
The input to H(D) only specifies the behavior of D
simulated by H.
>> I am not going to talk about any non-nonsense of
>> resuming a simulation after we already have this
>> final answer.
>
> And you think that statements like this will not be an obstacle when you
> present your work to cs/math academia?
>
Not at all. I will adapt a C interpreter to make
things more clear.
> Do you think that CS academics will buy the idea that a simulating
> halt decider can leave a simulation object with unfinished steps,
Absolutely.
> such that those do not matter, and pronounce that simulation to be
> never ending?
>
As soon as a non-terminating behavior pattern is
correctly matched we are done.
> They are going to ask the obvious question: what if you take that
> simulation and peform more steps, surely it halts, so the result was
> wrong.
>
void Infinite_Loop()
{
HERE: goto HERE;
return;
}
That we be the same as asking are we sure that
Infinite_Loop() never terminates? Do we need to
look at this again?
> You need a /rational/ argument to explain why that is forbidden;
> you cannot just /decree/ that it is so.
>
No rational argument needed simply look at
the execution trace.
> That's not how things work in the intellectual arts.
>
You are simply totally wrong on this point about
resuming a simulation.
>> We just proved that the input to H(D) specifies
>> non-halting. Anything beyond this is flogging a
>> dead horse.
>
> English language figures of speech are not a substitute
> for logical reasoning.
>
That you just don't get it does not entail
that I am incorrect.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-06 22:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10ej669$120mf$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135176 |
Am Thu, 06 Nov 2025 15:32:51 -0600 schrieb olcott: > On 11/6/2025 3:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> A partial simulation of D does not show whether (or not) >> D reaches a halt state. > I have know that for many years. That goes directly against your claims. >> Only a correct, complete simulation of D coincides with D's behavior. > We don't give a rat's ass about the behavior of D. The input to H(D) > only specifies the behavior of D simulated by H. Nobody cares about H. >> Do you think that CS academics will buy the idea that a simulating halt >> decider can leave a simulation object with unfinished steps, > Absolutely. You are beyond the pail. >> such that those do not matter, and pronounce that simulation to be >> never ending? > As soon as a non-terminating behavior pattern is correctly matched we > are done. Now you only need to prove the correctness. >> They are going to ask the obvious question: what if you take that >> simulation and peform more steps, surely it halts, so the result was >> wrong. > That we be the same as asking are we sure that Infinite_Loop() never > terminates? It’s not the same. D halts when executed. >> That's not how things work in the intellectual arts. > You are simply totally wrong on this point about resuming a simulation. You haven’t even understood we are not resuming the simulatOR H. >> English language figures of speech are not a substitute for logical >> reasoning. > That you just don't get it does not entail that I am incorrect. Neither does you proclaiming somebody doesn’t get it entail that you are correct. -- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math: It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-06 16:16 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10ej6n6$1eq5o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135178 |
On 11/6/2025 4:07 PM, joes wrote: > Am Thu, 06 Nov 2025 15:32:51 -0600 schrieb olcott: >> On 11/6/2025 3:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> A partial simulation of D does not show whether (or not) >>> D reaches a halt state. >> I have know that for many years. > That goes directly against your claims. > >>> Only a correct, complete simulation of D coincides with D's behavior. >> We don't give a rat's ass about the behavior of D. The input to H(D) >> only specifies the behavior of D simulated by H. > Nobody cares about H. > >>> Do you think that CS academics will buy the idea that a simulating halt >>> decider can leave a simulation object with unfinished steps, >> Absolutely. > You are beyond the pail. > >>> such that those do not matter, and pronounce that simulation to be >>> never ending? >> As soon as a non-terminating behavior pattern is correctly matched we >> are done. > Now you only need to prove the correctness. > >>> They are going to ask the obvious question: what if you take that >>> simulation and peform more steps, surely it halts, so the result was >>> wrong. >> That we be the same as asking are we sure that Infinite_Loop() never >> terminates? > It’s not the same. D halts when executed. > The is off topic because that is out-of-scope for any termination analyzer. It requires H to have the psychic powers to see steps that are not the steps that its actual input actually specifies. I am stopping here and will not respond to you again until you follow the points that I make in the order that I make them and thus do not attempt to hi-jack the conversation. >>> That's not how things work in the intellectual arts. >> You are simply totally wrong on this point about resuming a simulation. > You haven’t even understood we are not resuming the simulatOR H. > >>> English language figures of speech are not a substitute for logical >>> reasoning. >> That you just don't get it does not entail that I am incorrect. > Neither does you proclaiming somebody doesn’t get it entail that you > are correct. > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-06 17:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10ej7bb$1e4nl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135181 |
On 11/6/2025 5:16 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/6/2025 4:07 PM, joes wrote: >> Am Thu, 06 Nov 2025 15:32:51 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>> On 11/6/2025 3:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>> A partial simulation of D does not show whether (or not) >>>> D reaches a halt state. >>> I have know that for many years. >> That goes directly against your claims. >> >>>> Only a correct, complete simulation of D coincides with D's behavior. >>> We don't give a rat's ass about the behavior of D. The input to H(D) >>> only specifies the behavior of D simulated by H. >> Nobody cares about H. >> >>>> Do you think that CS academics will buy the idea that a simulating halt >>>> decider can leave a simulation object with unfinished steps, >>> Absolutely. >> You are beyond the pail. >> >>>> such that those do not matter, and pronounce that simulation to be >>>> never ending? >>> As soon as a non-terminating behavior pattern is correctly matched we >>> are done. >> Now you only need to prove the correctness. >> >>>> They are going to ask the obvious question: what if you take that >>>> simulation and peform more steps, surely it halts, so the result was >>>> wrong. >>> That we be the same as asking are we sure that Infinite_Loop() never >>> terminates? > >> It’s not the same. D halts when executed. >> > > The is off topic because that is out-of-scope > for any termination analyzer. False, because the input to H(D), i.e. finite string D which is the description of machine D and therefore is stipulated to specify all semantic properties of machine D including that it halts when executed directly. > > It requires H to have the psychic powers to see > steps that are not the steps that its actual input > actually specifies. False. As proven above, the steps that the actual input to H(D) actually specifies are those of the directly executed machine D.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-06 16:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10ej7m9$1f0el$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135183 |
On 11/6/2025 4:26 PM, dbush wrote: > On 11/6/2025 5:16 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 11/6/2025 4:07 PM, joes wrote: >>> Am Thu, 06 Nov 2025 15:32:51 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 11/6/2025 3:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>> A partial simulation of D does not show whether (or not) >>>>> D reaches a halt state. >>>> I have know that for many years. >>> That goes directly against your claims. >>> >>>>> Only a correct, complete simulation of D coincides with D's behavior. >>>> We don't give a rat's ass about the behavior of D. The input to H(D) >>>> only specifies the behavior of D simulated by H. >>> Nobody cares about H. >>> >>>>> Do you think that CS academics will buy the idea that a simulating >>>>> halt >>>>> decider can leave a simulation object with unfinished steps, >>>> Absolutely. >>> You are beyond the pail. >>> >>>>> such that those do not matter, and pronounce that simulation to be >>>>> never ending? >>>> As soon as a non-terminating behavior pattern is correctly matched we >>>> are done. >>> Now you only need to prove the correctness. >>> >>>>> They are going to ask the obvious question: what if you take that >>>>> simulation and peform more steps, surely it halts, so the result was >>>>> wrong. >>>> That we be the same as asking are we sure that Infinite_Loop() never >>>> terminates? >> >>> It’s not the same. D halts when executed. >>> >> >> The is off topic because that is out-of-scope >> for any termination analyzer. > > False, because the input to H(D), i.e. finite string D which is the > description of machine D and therefore is stipulated to specify all > semantic properties of machine D including that it halts when executed > directly. > >> >> It requires H to have the psychic powers to see >> steps that are not the steps that its actual input >> actually specifies. > > False. As proven above, the steps that the actual input to H(D) > actually specifies are those of the directly executed machine D. If that was true then you could show the steps of D simulated by H reaching its simulated "return" statement nitwit. None of the moronic stopping and starting over bullshit. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-06 17:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10ej7rg$1e4nl$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135185 |
On 11/6/2025 5:32 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/6/2025 4:26 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 11/6/2025 5:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 11/6/2025 4:07 PM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Thu, 06 Nov 2025 15:32:51 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 11/6/2025 3:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>> A partial simulation of D does not show whether (or not) >>>>>> D reaches a halt state. >>>>> I have know that for many years. >>>> That goes directly against your claims. >>>> >>>>>> Only a correct, complete simulation of D coincides with D's behavior. >>>>> We don't give a rat's ass about the behavior of D. The input to H(D) >>>>> only specifies the behavior of D simulated by H. >>>> Nobody cares about H. >>>> >>>>>> Do you think that CS academics will buy the idea that a simulating >>>>>> halt >>>>>> decider can leave a simulation object with unfinished steps, >>>>> Absolutely. >>>> You are beyond the pail. >>>> >>>>>> such that those do not matter, and pronounce that simulation to be >>>>>> never ending? >>>>> As soon as a non-terminating behavior pattern is correctly matched we >>>>> are done. >>>> Now you only need to prove the correctness. >>>> >>>>>> They are going to ask the obvious question: what if you take that >>>>>> simulation and peform more steps, surely it halts, so the result was >>>>>> wrong. >>>>> That we be the same as asking are we sure that Infinite_Loop() never >>>>> terminates? >>> >>>> It’s not the same. D halts when executed. >>>> >>> >>> The is off topic because that is out-of-scope >>> for any termination analyzer. >> >> False, because the input to H(D), i.e. finite string D which is the >> description of machine D and therefore is stipulated to specify all >> semantic properties of machine D including that it halts when executed >> directly. >> >>> >>> It requires H to have the psychic powers to see >>> steps that are not the steps that its actual input >>> actually specifies. >> >> False. As proven above, the steps that the actual input to H(D) >> actually specifies are those of the directly executed machine D. > > If that was true then you could show the steps of D > simulated by H reaching its simulated "return" statement > nitwit. None of the moronic stopping and starting over > bullshit. > That the input to H(D), i.e. the finite string description of machine D, specifies all semantic properties of the directly executed D is a semantic tautology. Disagreeing with a semantic tautology is always incorrect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-06 16:55 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10ej91d$1fbnb$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135186 |
On 11/6/2025 4:35 PM, dbush wrote: > On 11/6/2025 5:32 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 11/6/2025 4:26 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 11/6/2025 5:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 11/6/2025 4:07 PM, joes wrote: >>>>> Am Thu, 06 Nov 2025 15:32:51 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>> On 11/6/2025 3:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> A partial simulation of D does not show whether (or not) >>>>>>> D reaches a halt state. >>>>>> I have know that for many years. >>>>> That goes directly against your claims. >>>>> >>>>>>> Only a correct, complete simulation of D coincides with D's >>>>>>> behavior. >>>>>> We don't give a rat's ass about the behavior of D. The input to H(D) >>>>>> only specifies the behavior of D simulated by H. >>>>> Nobody cares about H. >>>>> >>>>>>> Do you think that CS academics will buy the idea that a >>>>>>> simulating halt >>>>>>> decider can leave a simulation object with unfinished steps, >>>>>> Absolutely. >>>>> You are beyond the pail. >>>>> >>>>>>> such that those do not matter, and pronounce that simulation to be >>>>>>> never ending? >>>>>> As soon as a non-terminating behavior pattern is correctly matched we >>>>>> are done. >>>>> Now you only need to prove the correctness. >>>>> >>>>>>> They are going to ask the obvious question: what if you take that >>>>>>> simulation and peform more steps, surely it halts, so the result was >>>>>>> wrong. >>>>>> That we be the same as asking are we sure that Infinite_Loop() never >>>>>> terminates? >>>> >>>>> It’s not the same. D halts when executed. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The is off topic because that is out-of-scope >>>> for any termination analyzer. >>> >>> False, because the input to H(D), i.e. finite string D which is the >>> description of machine D and therefore is stipulated to specify all >>> semantic properties of machine D including that it halts when >>> executed directly. >>> >>>> >>>> It requires H to have the psychic powers to see >>>> steps that are not the steps that its actual input >>>> actually specifies. >>> >>> False. As proven above, the steps that the actual input to H(D) >>> actually specifies are those of the directly executed machine D. >> >> If that was true then you could show the steps of D >> simulated by H reaching its simulated "return" statement >> nitwit. None of the moronic stopping and starting over >> bullshit. >> > > > That the input to H(D), i.e. the finite string description of machine D, > specifies all semantic properties of the directly executed D is a > semantic tautology. > In other words you are too fucking stupid to show the actual steps. > Disagreeing with a semantic tautology is always incorrect. > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-06 18:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10ej9ah$1fbjq$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135188 |
On 11/6/2025 5:55 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/6/2025 4:35 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 11/6/2025 5:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 11/6/2025 4:26 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 11/6/2025 5:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 11/6/2025 4:07 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Thu, 06 Nov 2025 15:32:51 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 3:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> A partial simulation of D does not show whether (or not) >>>>>>>> D reaches a halt state. >>>>>>> I have know that for many years. >>>>>> That goes directly against your claims. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Only a correct, complete simulation of D coincides with D's >>>>>>>> behavior. >>>>>>> We don't give a rat's ass about the behavior of D. The input to H(D) >>>>>>> only specifies the behavior of D simulated by H. >>>>>> Nobody cares about H. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you think that CS academics will buy the idea that a >>>>>>>> simulating halt >>>>>>>> decider can leave a simulation object with unfinished steps, >>>>>>> Absolutely. >>>>>> You are beyond the pail. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> such that those do not matter, and pronounce that simulation to be >>>>>>>> never ending? >>>>>>> As soon as a non-terminating behavior pattern is correctly >>>>>>> matched we >>>>>>> are done. >>>>>> Now you only need to prove the correctness. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> They are going to ask the obvious question: what if you take that >>>>>>>> simulation and peform more steps, surely it halts, so the result >>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>> wrong. >>>>>>> That we be the same as asking are we sure that Infinite_Loop() never >>>>>>> terminates? >>>>> >>>>>> It’s not the same. D halts when executed. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The is off topic because that is out-of-scope >>>>> for any termination analyzer. >>>> >>>> False, because the input to H(D), i.e. finite string D which is the >>>> description of machine D and therefore is stipulated to specify all >>>> semantic properties of machine D including that it halts when >>>> executed directly. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> It requires H to have the psychic powers to see >>>>> steps that are not the steps that its actual input >>>>> actually specifies. >>>> >>>> False. As proven above, the steps that the actual input to H(D) >>>> actually specifies are those of the directly executed machine D. >>> >>> If that was true then you could show the steps of D >>> simulated by H reaching its simulated "return" statement >>> nitwit. None of the moronic stopping and starting over >>> bullshit. >>> >> >> >> That the input to H(D), i.e. the finite string description of machine >> D, specifies all semantic properties of the directly executed D is a >> semantic tautology. >> > > In other words you are too fucking stupid to > show the actual steps. It is a semantic tautology that the steps of the algorithm D that algorithm H simulates are exactly the same as the steps of algorithm D being executed directly. It's just that algorithm H doesn't simulate all of those steps. > >> Disagreeing with a semantic tautology is always incorrect. >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-06 17:12 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10eja0l$1fne8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135190 |
On 11/6/2025 5:00 PM, dbush wrote: > On 11/6/2025 5:55 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 11/6/2025 4:35 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 11/6/2025 5:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 11/6/2025 4:26 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 11/6/2025 4:07 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>> Am Thu, 06 Nov 2025 15:32:51 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 3:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A partial simulation of D does not show whether (or not) >>>>>>>>> D reaches a halt state. >>>>>>>> I have know that for many years. >>>>>>> That goes directly against your claims. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Only a correct, complete simulation of D coincides with D's >>>>>>>>> behavior. >>>>>>>> We don't give a rat's ass about the behavior of D. The input to >>>>>>>> H(D) >>>>>>>> only specifies the behavior of D simulated by H. >>>>>>> Nobody cares about H. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you think that CS academics will buy the idea that a >>>>>>>>> simulating halt >>>>>>>>> decider can leave a simulation object with unfinished steps, >>>>>>>> Absolutely. >>>>>>> You are beyond the pail. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> such that those do not matter, and pronounce that simulation to be >>>>>>>>> never ending? >>>>>>>> As soon as a non-terminating behavior pattern is correctly >>>>>>>> matched we >>>>>>>> are done. >>>>>>> Now you only need to prove the correctness. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> They are going to ask the obvious question: what if you take that >>>>>>>>> simulation and peform more steps, surely it halts, so the >>>>>>>>> result was >>>>>>>>> wrong. >>>>>>>> That we be the same as asking are we sure that Infinite_Loop() >>>>>>>> never >>>>>>>> terminates? >>>>>> >>>>>>> It’s not the same. D halts when executed. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The is off topic because that is out-of-scope >>>>>> for any termination analyzer. >>>>> >>>>> False, because the input to H(D), i.e. finite string D which is the >>>>> description of machine D and therefore is stipulated to specify all >>>>> semantic properties of machine D including that it halts when >>>>> executed directly. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It requires H to have the psychic powers to see >>>>>> steps that are not the steps that its actual input >>>>>> actually specifies. >>>>> >>>>> False. As proven above, the steps that the actual input to H(D) >>>>> actually specifies are those of the directly executed machine D. >>>> >>>> If that was true then you could show the steps of D >>>> simulated by H reaching its simulated "return" statement >>>> nitwit. None of the moronic stopping and starting over >>>> bullshit. >>>> >>> >>> >>> That the input to H(D), i.e. the finite string description of machine >>> D, specifies all semantic properties of the directly executed D is a >>> semantic tautology. >>> >> >> In other words you are too fucking stupid to >> show the actual steps. > > It is a semantic tautology It is not a semantic tautology it is merely a false assumption at the foundation of computer science and math. Claude AI thought it was necessarily true too. > that the steps of the algorithm D that > algorithm H simulates are exactly the same as the steps of algorithm D > being executed directly. > > It's just that algorithm H doesn't simulate all of those steps. > > >> >>> Disagreeing with a semantic tautology is always incorrect. >>> >> >> > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-06 18:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10ejb6s$1e4nl$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135194 |
On 11/6/2025 6:12 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/6/2025 5:00 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 11/6/2025 5:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 11/6/2025 4:35 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 11/6/2025 5:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 11/6/2025 4:26 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 4:07 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>> Am Thu, 06 Nov 2025 15:32:51 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 3:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A partial simulation of D does not show whether (or not) >>>>>>>>>> D reaches a halt state. >>>>>>>>> I have know that for many years. >>>>>>>> That goes directly against your claims. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Only a correct, complete simulation of D coincides with D's >>>>>>>>>> behavior. >>>>>>>>> We don't give a rat's ass about the behavior of D. The input to >>>>>>>>> H(D) >>>>>>>>> only specifies the behavior of D simulated by H. >>>>>>>> Nobody cares about H. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Do you think that CS academics will buy the idea that a >>>>>>>>>> simulating halt >>>>>>>>>> decider can leave a simulation object with unfinished steps, >>>>>>>>> Absolutely. >>>>>>>> You are beyond the pail. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> such that those do not matter, and pronounce that simulation >>>>>>>>>> to be >>>>>>>>>> never ending? >>>>>>>>> As soon as a non-terminating behavior pattern is correctly >>>>>>>>> matched we >>>>>>>>> are done. >>>>>>>> Now you only need to prove the correctness. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> They are going to ask the obvious question: what if you take that >>>>>>>>>> simulation and peform more steps, surely it halts, so the >>>>>>>>>> result was >>>>>>>>>> wrong. >>>>>>>>> That we be the same as asking are we sure that Infinite_Loop() >>>>>>>>> never >>>>>>>>> terminates? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It’s not the same. D halts when executed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The is off topic because that is out-of-scope >>>>>>> for any termination analyzer. >>>>>> >>>>>> False, because the input to H(D), i.e. finite string D which is >>>>>> the description of machine D and therefore is stipulated to >>>>>> specify all semantic properties of machine D including that it >>>>>> halts when executed directly. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It requires H to have the psychic powers to see >>>>>>> steps that are not the steps that its actual input >>>>>>> actually specifies. >>>>>> >>>>>> False. As proven above, the steps that the actual input to H(D) >>>>>> actually specifies are those of the directly executed machine D. >>>>> >>>>> If that was true then you could show the steps of D >>>>> simulated by H reaching its simulated "return" statement >>>>> nitwit. None of the moronic stopping and starting over >>>>> bullshit. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> That the input to H(D), i.e. the finite string description of >>>> machine D, specifies all semantic properties of the directly >>>> executed D is a semantic tautology. >>>> >>> >>> In other words you are too fucking stupid to >>> show the actual steps. >> >> It is a semantic tautology > > It is not a semantic tautology Disagreeing with a semantic tautology is always incorrect >> that the steps of the algorithm D that algorithm H simulates are >> exactly the same as the steps of algorithm D being executed directly. >> >> It's just that algorithm H doesn't simulate all of those steps. >> >> >>> >>>> Disagreeing with a semantic tautology is always incorrect. >>>> >>> >>> >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-06 17:36 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10ejbei$1g5ql$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135195 |
On 11/6/2025 5:32 PM, dbush wrote: > On 11/6/2025 6:12 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 11/6/2025 5:00 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 11/6/2025 5:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 11/6/2025 4:35 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 11/6/2025 4:26 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 4:07 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 06 Nov 2025 15:32:51 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 3:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A partial simulation of D does not show whether (or not) >>>>>>>>>>> D reaches a halt state. >>>>>>>>>> I have know that for many years. >>>>>>>>> That goes directly against your claims. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Only a correct, complete simulation of D coincides with D's >>>>>>>>>>> behavior. >>>>>>>>>> We don't give a rat's ass about the behavior of D. The input >>>>>>>>>> to H(D) >>>>>>>>>> only specifies the behavior of D simulated by H. >>>>>>>>> Nobody cares about H. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Do you think that CS academics will buy the idea that a >>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt >>>>>>>>>>> decider can leave a simulation object with unfinished steps, >>>>>>>>>> Absolutely. >>>>>>>>> You are beyond the pail. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> such that those do not matter, and pronounce that simulation >>>>>>>>>>> to be >>>>>>>>>>> never ending? >>>>>>>>>> As soon as a non-terminating behavior pattern is correctly >>>>>>>>>> matched we >>>>>>>>>> are done. >>>>>>>>> Now you only need to prove the correctness. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> They are going to ask the obvious question: what if you take >>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>> simulation and peform more steps, surely it halts, so the >>>>>>>>>>> result was >>>>>>>>>>> wrong. >>>>>>>>>> That we be the same as asking are we sure that Infinite_Loop() >>>>>>>>>> never >>>>>>>>>> terminates? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It’s not the same. D halts when executed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The is off topic because that is out-of-scope >>>>>>>> for any termination analyzer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> False, because the input to H(D), i.e. finite string D which is >>>>>>> the description of machine D and therefore is stipulated to >>>>>>> specify all semantic properties of machine D including that it >>>>>>> halts when executed directly. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It requires H to have the psychic powers to see >>>>>>>> steps that are not the steps that its actual input >>>>>>>> actually specifies. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> False. As proven above, the steps that the actual input to H(D) >>>>>>> actually specifies are those of the directly executed machine D. >>>>>> >>>>>> If that was true then you could show the steps of D >>>>>> simulated by H reaching its simulated "return" statement >>>>>> nitwit. None of the moronic stopping and starting over >>>>>> bullshit. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That the input to H(D), i.e. the finite string description of >>>>> machine D, specifies all semantic properties of the directly >>>>> executed D is a semantic tautology. >>>>> >>>> >>>> In other words you are too fucking stupid to >>>> show the actual steps. >>> >>> It is a semantic tautology >> >> It is not a semantic tautology > > Disagreeing with a semantic tautology is always incorrect > You are getting close to being plonked. >>> that the steps of the algorithm D that algorithm H simulates are >>> exactly the same as the steps of algorithm D being executed directly. >>> >>> It's just that algorithm H doesn't simulate all of those steps. >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> Disagreeing with a semantic tautology is always incorrect. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-06 18:43 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10ejbr3$1e4nl$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135197 |
On 11/6/2025 6:36 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/6/2025 5:32 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 11/6/2025 6:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 11/6/2025 5:00 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 11/6/2025 5:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 11/6/2025 4:35 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 4:26 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 4:07 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 06 Nov 2025 15:32:51 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 3:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> A partial simulation of D does not show whether (or not) >>>>>>>>>>>> D reaches a halt state. >>>>>>>>>>> I have know that for many years. >>>>>>>>>> That goes directly against your claims. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Only a correct, complete simulation of D coincides with D's >>>>>>>>>>>> behavior. >>>>>>>>>>> We don't give a rat's ass about the behavior of D. The input >>>>>>>>>>> to H(D) >>>>>>>>>>> only specifies the behavior of D simulated by H. >>>>>>>>>> Nobody cares about H. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think that CS academics will buy the idea that a >>>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt >>>>>>>>>>>> decider can leave a simulation object with unfinished steps, >>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely. >>>>>>>>>> You are beyond the pail. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> such that those do not matter, and pronounce that simulation >>>>>>>>>>>> to be >>>>>>>>>>>> never ending? >>>>>>>>>>> As soon as a non-terminating behavior pattern is correctly >>>>>>>>>>> matched we >>>>>>>>>>> are done. >>>>>>>>>> Now you only need to prove the correctness. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> They are going to ask the obvious question: what if you take >>>>>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>>>>> simulation and peform more steps, surely it halts, so the >>>>>>>>>>>> result was >>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. >>>>>>>>>>> That we be the same as asking are we sure that >>>>>>>>>>> Infinite_Loop() never >>>>>>>>>>> terminates? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It’s not the same. D halts when executed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The is off topic because that is out-of-scope >>>>>>>>> for any termination analyzer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> False, because the input to H(D), i.e. finite string D which is >>>>>>>> the description of machine D and therefore is stipulated to >>>>>>>> specify all semantic properties of machine D including that it >>>>>>>> halts when executed directly. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It requires H to have the psychic powers to see >>>>>>>>> steps that are not the steps that its actual input >>>>>>>>> actually specifies. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> False. As proven above, the steps that the actual input to H(D) >>>>>>>> actually specifies are those of the directly executed machine D. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If that was true then you could show the steps of D >>>>>>> simulated by H reaching its simulated "return" statement >>>>>>> nitwit. None of the moronic stopping and starting over >>>>>>> bullshit. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That the input to H(D), i.e. the finite string description of >>>>>> machine D, specifies all semantic properties of the directly >>>>>> executed D is a semantic tautology. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In other words you are too fucking stupid to >>>>> show the actual steps. >>>> >>>> It is a semantic tautology >>> >>> It is not a semantic tautology >> >> Disagreeing with a semantic tautology is always incorrect >> > > You are getting close to being plonked. It's not my fault you don't understand stipulative definitions. Here's one: Turing machine description: a finite string that specifies all semantic properties of the machine being described. And as you admitted: On 9/12/2025 9:30 AM, olcott wrote: > every TM has a machine description So there exists a finite string that has the semantic property of machine D halting. > >>>> that the steps of the algorithm D that algorithm H simulates are >>>> exactly the same as the steps of algorithm D being executed directly. >>>> >>>> It's just that algorithm H doesn't simulate all of those steps. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Disagreeing with a semantic tautology is always incorrect. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-06 17:59 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10ejcor$1gik4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135198 |
On 11/6/2025 5:43 PM, dbush wrote: > On 11/6/2025 6:36 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 11/6/2025 5:32 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 11/6/2025 6:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 11/6/2025 5:00 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 11/6/2025 4:35 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 4:26 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 4:07 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 06 Nov 2025 15:32:51 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 3:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> A partial simulation of D does not show whether (or not) >>>>>>>>>>>>> D reaches a halt state. >>>>>>>>>>>> I have know that for many years. >>>>>>>>>>> That goes directly against your claims. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Only a correct, complete simulation of D coincides with D's >>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior. >>>>>>>>>>>> We don't give a rat's ass about the behavior of D. The input >>>>>>>>>>>> to H(D) >>>>>>>>>>>> only specifies the behavior of D simulated by H. >>>>>>>>>>> Nobody cares about H. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think that CS academics will buy the idea that a >>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt >>>>>>>>>>>>> decider can leave a simulation object with unfinished steps, >>>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely. >>>>>>>>>>> You are beyond the pail. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> such that those do not matter, and pronounce that >>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation to be >>>>>>>>>>>>> never ending? >>>>>>>>>>>> As soon as a non-terminating behavior pattern is correctly >>>>>>>>>>>> matched we >>>>>>>>>>>> are done. >>>>>>>>>>> Now you only need to prove the correctness. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> They are going to ask the obvious question: what if you >>>>>>>>>>>>> take that >>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation and peform more steps, surely it halts, so the >>>>>>>>>>>>> result was >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>> That we be the same as asking are we sure that >>>>>>>>>>>> Infinite_Loop() never >>>>>>>>>>>> terminates? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It’s not the same. D halts when executed. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The is off topic because that is out-of-scope >>>>>>>>>> for any termination analyzer. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> False, because the input to H(D), i.e. finite string D which is >>>>>>>>> the description of machine D and therefore is stipulated to >>>>>>>>> specify all semantic properties of machine D including that it >>>>>>>>> halts when executed directly. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It requires H to have the psychic powers to see >>>>>>>>>> steps that are not the steps that its actual input >>>>>>>>>> actually specifies. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> False. As proven above, the steps that the actual input to >>>>>>>>> H(D) actually specifies are those of the directly executed >>>>>>>>> machine D. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If that was true then you could show the steps of D >>>>>>>> simulated by H reaching its simulated "return" statement >>>>>>>> nitwit. None of the moronic stopping and starting over >>>>>>>> bullshit. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That the input to H(D), i.e. the finite string description of >>>>>>> machine D, specifies all semantic properties of the directly >>>>>>> executed D is a semantic tautology. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In other words you are too fucking stupid to >>>>>> show the actual steps. >>>>> >>>>> It is a semantic tautology >>>> >>>> It is not a semantic tautology >>> >>> Disagreeing with a semantic tautology is always incorrect >>> >> >> You are getting close to being plonked. > > It's not my fault you don't understand stipulative definitions. Here's > one: > > Turing machine description: a finite string that specifies all semantic > properties of the machine being described. > Good you are being responsive. We can build an honest dialogue on this basis. Stipulative definitions are not exactly one-and-the-same thing as semantic tautologies. The only divergence is when elements of a set of stipulative definitions are inconsistent with each other. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-06 19:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10ejctp$1e4nl$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135201 |
On 11/6/2025 6:59 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/6/2025 5:43 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 11/6/2025 6:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 11/6/2025 5:32 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 11/6/2025 6:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:00 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 4:35 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 4:26 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 4:07 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 06 Nov 2025 15:32:51 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 3:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A partial simulation of D does not show whether (or not) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> D reaches a halt state. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I have know that for many years. >>>>>>>>>>>> That goes directly against your claims. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only a correct, complete simulation of D coincides with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> D's behavior. >>>>>>>>>>>>> We don't give a rat's ass about the behavior of D. The >>>>>>>>>>>>> input to H(D) >>>>>>>>>>>>> only specifies the behavior of D simulated by H. >>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody cares about H. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think that CS academics will buy the idea that a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt >>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider can leave a simulation object with unfinished steps, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely. >>>>>>>>>>>> You are beyond the pail. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that those do not matter, and pronounce that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>> never ending? >>>>>>>>>>>>> As soon as a non-terminating behavior pattern is correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>> matched we >>>>>>>>>>>>> are done. >>>>>>>>>>>> Now you only need to prove the correctness. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are going to ask the obvious question: what if you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> take that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation and peform more steps, surely it halts, so the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> result was >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>> That we be the same as asking are we sure that >>>>>>>>>>>>> Infinite_Loop() never >>>>>>>>>>>>> terminates? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It’s not the same. D halts when executed. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The is off topic because that is out-of-scope >>>>>>>>>>> for any termination analyzer. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> False, because the input to H(D), i.e. finite string D which >>>>>>>>>> is the description of machine D and therefore is stipulated to >>>>>>>>>> specify all semantic properties of machine D including that it >>>>>>>>>> halts when executed directly. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It requires H to have the psychic powers to see >>>>>>>>>>> steps that are not the steps that its actual input >>>>>>>>>>> actually specifies. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> False. As proven above, the steps that the actual input to >>>>>>>>>> H(D) actually specifies are those of the directly executed >>>>>>>>>> machine D. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If that was true then you could show the steps of D >>>>>>>>> simulated by H reaching its simulated "return" statement >>>>>>>>> nitwit. None of the moronic stopping and starting over >>>>>>>>> bullshit. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That the input to H(D), i.e. the finite string description of >>>>>>>> machine D, specifies all semantic properties of the directly >>>>>>>> executed D is a semantic tautology. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In other words you are too fucking stupid to >>>>>>> show the actual steps. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is a semantic tautology >>>>> >>>>> It is not a semantic tautology >>>> >>>> Disagreeing with a semantic tautology is always incorrect >>>> >>> >>> You are getting close to being plonked. >> >> It's not my fault you don't understand stipulative definitions. >> Here's one: >> >> Turing machine description: a finite string that specifies all >> semantic properties of the machine being described. >> > > Good you are being responsive. We can build an honest > dialogue on this basis. Then you agree that the input to H(D), i.e. the description of Turing machine D, possesses the semantic property of halting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-06 18:28 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10ejefe$1h1dh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135204 |
On 11/6/2025 6:02 PM, dbush wrote: > On 11/6/2025 6:59 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 11/6/2025 5:43 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 11/6/2025 6:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 11/6/2025 5:32 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 11/6/2025 6:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:00 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 4:35 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 4:26 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 4:07 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 06 Nov 2025 15:32:51 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 3:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A partial simulation of D does not show whether (or not) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D reaches a halt state. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have know that for many years. >>>>>>>>>>>>> That goes directly against your claims. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only a correct, complete simulation of D coincides with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D's behavior. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> We don't give a rat's ass about the behavior of D. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to H(D) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> only specifies the behavior of D simulated by H. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody cares about H. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think that CS academics will buy the idea that a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider can leave a simulation object with unfinished steps, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely. >>>>>>>>>>>>> You are beyond the pail. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that those do not matter, and pronounce that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never ending? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As soon as a non-terminating behavior pattern is correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> matched we >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are done. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Now you only need to prove the correctness. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are going to ask the obvious question: what if you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation and peform more steps, surely it halts, so the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That we be the same as asking are we sure that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infinite_Loop() never >>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminates? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It’s not the same. D halts when executed. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The is off topic because that is out-of-scope >>>>>>>>>>>> for any termination analyzer. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> False, because the input to H(D), i.e. finite string D which >>>>>>>>>>> is the description of machine D and therefore is stipulated >>>>>>>>>>> to specify all semantic properties of machine D including >>>>>>>>>>> that it halts when executed directly. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It requires H to have the psychic powers to see >>>>>>>>>>>> steps that are not the steps that its actual input >>>>>>>>>>>> actually specifies. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> False. As proven above, the steps that the actual input to >>>>>>>>>>> H(D) actually specifies are those of the directly executed >>>>>>>>>>> machine D. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If that was true then you could show the steps of D >>>>>>>>>> simulated by H reaching its simulated "return" statement >>>>>>>>>> nitwit. None of the moronic stopping and starting over >>>>>>>>>> bullshit. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That the input to H(D), i.e. the finite string description of >>>>>>>>> machine D, specifies all semantic properties of the directly >>>>>>>>> executed D is a semantic tautology. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In other words you are too fucking stupid to >>>>>>>> show the actual steps. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is a semantic tautology >>>>>> >>>>>> It is not a semantic tautology >>>>> >>>>> Disagreeing with a semantic tautology is always incorrect >>>>> >>>> >>>> You are getting close to being plonked. >>> >>> It's not my fault you don't understand stipulative definitions. >>> Here's one: >>> >>> Turing machine description: a finite string that specifies all >>> semantic properties of the machine being described. >>> >> >> Good you are being responsive. We can build an honest >> dialogue on this basis. > > Then you agree that No you have to go back and read the rest of what I said. > the input to H(D), i.e. the description of Turing > machine D, possesses the semantic property of halting. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-06 19:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10ejf0h$1gmds$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135207 |
On 11/6/2025 7:28 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/6/2025 6:02 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 11/6/2025 6:59 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 11/6/2025 5:43 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 11/6/2025 6:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:32 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 11/6/2025 6:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:00 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 4:35 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 4:26 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 4:07 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 06 Nov 2025 15:32:51 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 3:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A partial simulation of D does not show whether (or not) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D reaches a halt state. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have know that for many years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That goes directly against your claims. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only a correct, complete simulation of D coincides with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D's behavior. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We don't give a rat's ass about the behavior of D. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to H(D) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only specifies the behavior of D simulated by H. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody cares about H. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think that CS academics will buy the idea that a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider can leave a simulation object with unfinished >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are beyond the pail. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that those do not matter, and pronounce that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never ending? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As soon as a non-terminating behavior pattern is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly matched we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are done. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now you only need to prove the correctness. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are going to ask the obvious question: what if you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation and peform more steps, surely it halts, so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the result was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That we be the same as asking are we sure that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infinite_Loop() never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminates? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It’s not the same. D halts when executed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The is off topic because that is out-of-scope >>>>>>>>>>>>> for any termination analyzer. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> False, because the input to H(D), i.e. finite string D which >>>>>>>>>>>> is the description of machine D and therefore is stipulated >>>>>>>>>>>> to specify all semantic properties of machine D including >>>>>>>>>>>> that it halts when executed directly. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> It requires H to have the psychic powers to see >>>>>>>>>>>>> steps that are not the steps that its actual input >>>>>>>>>>>>> actually specifies. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> False. As proven above, the steps that the actual input to >>>>>>>>>>>> H(D) actually specifies are those of the directly executed >>>>>>>>>>>> machine D. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If that was true then you could show the steps of D >>>>>>>>>>> simulated by H reaching its simulated "return" statement >>>>>>>>>>> nitwit. None of the moronic stopping and starting over >>>>>>>>>>> bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That the input to H(D), i.e. the finite string description of >>>>>>>>>> machine D, specifies all semantic properties of the directly >>>>>>>>>> executed D is a semantic tautology. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In other words you are too fucking stupid to >>>>>>>>> show the actual steps. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is a semantic tautology >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is not a semantic tautology >>>>>> >>>>>> Disagreeing with a semantic tautology is always incorrect >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You are getting close to being plonked. >>>> >>>> It's not my fault you don't understand stipulative definitions. >>>> Here's one: >>>> >>>> Turing machine description: a finite string that specifies all >>>> semantic properties of the machine being described. >>>> >>> >>> Good you are being responsive. We can build an honest >>> dialogue on this basis. >> >> Then you agree that > > No you have to go back and read the rest of what I said. On 4/2/22 6:43 PM, olcott wrote: > It is incorrect to disagree with stipulative definitions. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition > > Disagreeing with a stipulative definition is like disagreeing with > arithmetic. > >> the input to H(D), i.e. the description of Turing machine D, possesses >> the semantic property of halting. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-06 18:45 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10ejfer$1h82q$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135210 |
On 11/6/2025 6:37 PM, dbush wrote: > On 11/6/2025 7:28 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 11/6/2025 6:02 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 11/6/2025 6:59 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 11/6/2025 5:43 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 11/6/2025 6:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:32 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 6:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:00 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 4:35 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 4:26 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 4:07 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 06 Nov 2025 15:32:51 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 3:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A partial simulation of D does not show whether (or not) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D reaches a halt state. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have know that for many years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That goes directly against your claims. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only a correct, complete simulation of D coincides with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D's behavior. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We don't give a rat's ass about the behavior of D. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to H(D) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only specifies the behavior of D simulated by H. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody cares about H. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think that CS academics will buy the idea that a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulating halt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider can leave a simulation object with unfinished >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are beyond the pail. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that those do not matter, and pronounce that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never ending? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As soon as a non-terminating behavior pattern is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly matched we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are done. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now you only need to prove the correctness. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are going to ask the obvious question: what if you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation and peform more steps, surely it halts, so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the result was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That we be the same as asking are we sure that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infinite_Loop() never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminates? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It’s not the same. D halts when executed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The is off topic because that is out-of-scope >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for any termination analyzer. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> False, because the input to H(D), i.e. finite string D >>>>>>>>>>>>> which is the description of machine D and therefore is >>>>>>>>>>>>> stipulated to specify all semantic properties of machine D >>>>>>>>>>>>> including that it halts when executed directly. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It requires H to have the psychic powers to see >>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps that are not the steps that its actual input >>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually specifies. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> False. As proven above, the steps that the actual input to >>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D) actually specifies are those of the directly executed >>>>>>>>>>>>> machine D. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If that was true then you could show the steps of D >>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by H reaching its simulated "return" statement >>>>>>>>>>>> nitwit. None of the moronic stopping and starting over >>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That the input to H(D), i.e. the finite string description of >>>>>>>>>>> machine D, specifies all semantic properties of the directly >>>>>>>>>>> executed D is a semantic tautology. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In other words you are too fucking stupid to >>>>>>>>>> show the actual steps. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is a semantic tautology >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is not a semantic tautology >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Disagreeing with a semantic tautology is always incorrect >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You are getting close to being plonked. >>>>> >>>>> It's not my fault you don't understand stipulative definitions. >>>>> Here's one: >>>>> >>>>> Turing machine description: a finite string that specifies all >>>>> semantic properties of the machine being described. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Good you are being responsive. We can build an honest >>>> dialogue on this basis. >>> >>> Then you agree that >> >> No you have to go back and read the rest of what I said. > > On 4/2/22 6:43 PM, olcott wrote: > > It is incorrect to disagree with stipulative definitions. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition > > > > Disagreeing with a stipulative definition is like disagreeing with > > arithmetic. > > *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* >> >>> the input to H(D), i.e. the description of Turing machine D, >>> possesses the semantic property of halting. >> >> > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 32 [1] 2 3 … 32 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web